Over a decade ago, I wrote a short piece called “Yes, Human Cloning Should Be Permitted,” published in the Annals of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. The piece was a response to an earlier article, by Patricia Baird, called “Should Human Cloning Be Permitted?” The question in Baird’s title was a rhetorical one: she argued that the answer was very clearly “no.”

Now, to be clear, my article wasn’t an argument in favour of cloning. In 2000, when the article was published, it was pretty clear that cloning humans would be a bad idea — the science of cloning mammals was still in its infancy, and trying it on homo sapiens would constitute unwarranted experimentation on humans. The point of my article was rather to respond to what I took to be flawed arguments in Baird’s article.

Baird argued that the psychological burdens on a clone — knowing of its own bizarre genesis — would be too severe. And yet she ignored the fact that many, many children today result from other technological interventions in the human life cycle. Just how would clones be different, in this regard? She also worried about the “commodification” of children, but didn’t mention the fact that children pretty much always constitute an expense. When you spend tens of thousands of dollars on special care for a disabled child, do you then regard them as a commodity? And she claimed that clones would miss out on an “important part of human identity,” namely the feeling of being the unique result of two genetic lineages. But, I replied, in the absence of evidence, such worries are mere pop psychology. Plenty of people don’t identify equally with both their maternal and paternal lineages, and many people grow up ignorant of one or both.

In general, the point of my argument was that the worries listed by Baird were insufficient to justify her solution, namely a ban on human cloning. Yes, the science then was primitive, but that fact justified caution, not an outright ban. But that was 2000, more than a decade ago. Have things changed? Has the science of cloning advanced to the point where it might be justifiable to try it on humans?

The International Federation for Equestrian Sports (Fédération Équestre Internationale, or FEI) has announced a reversal of its previous decision to ban cloned horses from competition.

The FEI’s statment, quoted here, includes the following:

“The FEI will not forbid participation of clones or their progenies in FEI competitions. The FEI will continue to monitor further research, especially with regard to equine welfare.”

The key ethical issues that arise with regards to this decision are:

1) animal welfare (referred to in the quotation above),

2) fairness across competitors (which was apparently the key concern when the FEI decided, back in 2007, not to let clones compete.

Let’s focus on 2). The worry is basically that cloning is (in a weird sense) a performance-enhancement technology. A given horse’s odds are enhanced, in theory, by the fact that it is a clone of (let’s say) a champion from days gone by. But of course, cloning isn’t that expensive these days, at least not compared to the value of a champion horse (i.e., one conceived the old-fashioned way).

Also, note that to assume that cloning constitutes a significant unfair advantage presumes that nature is considerably more important than nurture. This may or may not be true with regard to elite horses — I honestly don’t know. As far as I’m concerned, it’s going to be an interesting experiment. If genetic determinists are correct, then a decade from now we should expect to see dressage and other equestrian sports dominated by a few hot lineages of clones.

Breaking news, from Nature: the principle investigators of the recent avian flu transmission studies (along with a couple of dozen co-authors) have publicly vowed to “pause” their research for 60 days.

What’a really interesting, though, are their reasons. They want to organize a conference to debate the issues:

“We recognize that we and the rest of the scientific community need to clearly explain the benefits of this important research and the measures taken to minimize its possible risks. We propose to do so in an international forum in which the scientific community comes together to discuss and debate these issues.”

Why is that reason interesting? It’s interesting because it seems, at least, to assume that all that is required in order to quell the public’s unease over avian flu transmission studies is for the public to near clear explanations of “the benefits of this important research.”

Now, that may well be the case. But surely not all criticisms have come from the scientifically uninformed. And there are are issues at play, here, beyond a full inventory of costs and benefits. Don’t get me wrong: I actually think this research probably needs to be done. So in fact I’m generally in agreement with the authors of this new declaration, both regarding the work and the pause. Where we differ (at least judging by this new statement) is in the content of the discussion that needs to be held. We need a discussion that at least raises the full range of relevant ethical factors, including yes costs and benefits, but also risk tolerance, rights and duties, trust, and more.

One of the most fundamental ethical questions facing the world of science and technology has to do with whether some knowledge is so dangerous that it simply ought not be sought.

That, essentially, is the question posed by recent research into how bird flu could be made more deadly. Understanding the process is clearly useful to scientists who want to learn how better to combat deadly viruses. But it could also be useful to others with less noble goals.

Researchers successfully created a version of the H5N1 virus, typically only virulent in wild waterfowl, which could possibly be transmitted to humans.

The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) was set up after 9/11 to monitor the scientific community for bioterrorist threats. This is the first time the board has recommended authors not publish parts of an article since its inception in 2004, recommending scientists redact portions of the article which contain the methodology of how to replicate the procedure….

Final note: the problems posed by such research become more and more salient as the basic tools of biotech become cheaper and more readily available.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced on Thursday that he would authorize the unrestricted commercial cultivation of genetically modified alfalfa, setting aside a controversial compromise that had generated stiff opposition….

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack announced this afternoon that the agency will fully deregulate Monsanto’s controversial genetically engineered alfalfa. The choice was favored by the biotech industry and one of three options identified in the USDA’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) released last month….

A new analysis presented to Congress yesterday paints a stark picture for the Defense Department’s current efforts to secure renewable fuels.

Fuels made from plant waste or algae will not be achievable in large or cheap enough quantities to make sense for military applications in the next decade, concluded the report penned by the RAND Corporation….

The rush to biofuels seems to have been a case in which good intentions have resulted in promoting “green” solutions that turn out to be mirages.

A “private members bill” currently before Canada’s parliament will, if passed, require that “an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted” in Canada. (FYI, a bill that is a “private member’s bill” is a piece of proposed legislation brought forward by a “private member,” i.e., by a single member of parliament, usually a member of one of the Opposition parties, rather than by the governing party. Such bills rarely become law.)

For the first time, Parliament is engaged in a real debate over the negative impacts of genetically engineered (GE) food and crops (also known as genetically modified, GM). This debate is thanks to the one-line Private Members Bill C-474, which would require “an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.”

Despite industry attempts to prevent the debate from happening in the first place and a successful move to shut down Agriculture Committee hearings on the Bill, Bill C-474 continues to force more debate in both the House of Commons and the Agriculture Committee.

Biotech Ethics BLOG

This blog is about ethical issues in the biotechnology industry. That includes all 3 main areas of that industry: health biotech, food biotech, and industrial biotech. (The last two are particularly important, and don't get enough attention.)

Unlike my Business Ethics Blog, this one will focus on aggregating information, rather than offering much commentary.